John Steven Olausen v. Howard Skolnik; the Attorney General of the State of Nevada

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN STEVEN OLAUSEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HOWARD SKOLNIK; THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
NEVADA,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 07-16555
D.C. No. CV-06-00400-HDM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jeffrey Olausen appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issues of (1) whether1
Olausen’s due process rights were violated when the disciplinary hearing was held
at Nevada State Prison for alleged offenses that occurred at Ely State Prison;
(2) whether Olausen’s due process rights were violated when he was denied a
request to have witnesses testify at the hearing; and (3) whether some evidence
supported the hearing officer’s findings. The state has fully briefed the issues that
we certify for appeal.
07-16555 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.1
Olausen challenges a prison disciplinary conviction for abuse of the prison
grievance process. He contends that the conviction violates his due process rights
because: (1) the hearing was held at Nevada State Prison, but pertained to conduct
that occurred while he was at a different state prison; (2) he was denied access to
his requested witnesses during the proceedings; and (3) no evidence exists to
support his conviction. The state court decision is neither contrary to or an
unreasonable application of federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the
facts. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(d); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566–67
(1974) (discussing extent of prisoner due process right to call witnesses in prison
disciplinary decisions). Moreover, the record reflects there was “some evidence”
supporting the disciplinary decision. Superintendent v. Hill, 72 U.S. 445, 455
(1985).

-- 2 of 3 --

07-16555 3
Respondent’s motion to strike certain exhibits filed with Olausen’s opening
brief is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --